“ChatGPT, is the influenza vaccination useful?” Comparing Perceived Argument Strength and Correctness of Pro-Vaccination-arguments from AI and Medical Experts
Realizing the ascribed potential of generative AI for health information seeking depends on recipients’ perceptions of quality. In an online survey (N = 294), we aimed to investigate how German individuals evaluate AI-generated information compared to expert-generated content on the influenza vaccination. A follow-up experiment (N = 1,029) examined the impact of authorship disclosure on perceived argument quality and underlying mechanisms. The findings indicated that expert arguments were rated higher than AI-generated arguments, particularly when authorship was revealed. Trust in science and the Standing Committee on Vaccination accentuated these differences, while trust in AI and innovativeness did not moderate this effect.
Authors
- Marko Bachl (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5852-4948)
- Elena Link (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6861-5288)
- Selina A. Beckmann
Publication Details
- Journal
- Journal of Science Communication
- Published
- 2025-04-14
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.22323/2.24020204
- Citations
- 2
- Primary Topic
- Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 1.31